I would like to thank Steve for his important and timely posting about the US Bishops November 2006 statement on the Eucharist. There is a lot to Steve’s posting, and there is a lot in the Bishops’ statement. But neither Steve’s posting, the Bishops’ statement, nor my reflections could cover all issues that may arise about who should receive the Eucharist and who should not. Having said this, let me provide an imperfect response to some of the points Steve has presented and on which he sought the thoughts of MOJ participants.
First of all, there exists an abundance of guidance and instruction on many of the issues Steve has raised (abortion, marriage, masturbation, pre-marital sex, artificial birth control) and some that he has not but are on the minds of many Catholics today (euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, capital punishment, the use of armed force, etc.). The Catechism of the Catholic Church is always a good place to begin when one is searching for answers about what a Catholic should do and should avoid. Those with computer or library access should have no difficult obtaining access to Conciliar documents, encyclical letters, bishops’ conference texts, apostolic constitutions, curial documents, etc. Another useful resource is the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and the websites of the US Conference of Catholic bishops and of many US dioceses.
But still, as Steve suggests, there may still be some questions on particular points. Well, pastors, including bishops, have the office and, therefore, the responsibility to help the faithful assess whether a person may receive the Eucharist or not. In this context, the Church has the sacrament of reconciliation (confession and penance) to assist each member of the Church—clerical or lay, but all being members of the Body of Christ—to determine whether he or she is in a sufficient state of grace to receive the Eucharist. These are the resources useful for helping to address his underlying question. These provide the foundation for a proper exercise of the examination of conscience that serves as an appropriate prelude to the sacrament of reconciliation that may be needed before participation in the Eucharist. And surely a good and thorough examination of conscience, as the Church teaches, is a fundamental step before receiving the Eucharist. Statistics demonstrating that some percentage of a particular population agrees or not with some teaching of the Church, while they may be interesting, are not determinative of the question: who should receive communion?
In this context, I recall another debate over the use of statistics which, while interesting, were not determinative of the situation: suppose there are fifty, forty, thirty, twenty, ten righteous within the city… will you destroy it? “No” was the answer that God gave Abraham. I often think that if their walk continued a bit further and the question concerned the existence of one righteous, the answer of God would have been the same.
Steve poses the case of the Bishops’ Conference preparing a statement with no “wiggle room.” Knowing that the text to which Steve referred is a pastoral rather than a legal document, I wonder if it would be possible to draft the perfect legal document? In this regard, one need not think solely about Church texts that are juridical. After all, many of us spend countless hours in offices and classrooms demonstrating why the “perfect” legal text is not perfect at all. I guess that is why Sacred Scripture reminds us that only God is perfect, but we, as disciples of His Son, are called to become more perfect than we are. And the Church, through its ministry, teaching, and sacraments, is there to help in this pursuit.
But let me continue with Steve’s question and assume with him that the Church and the Bishops’ Conference or some appropriate dicastery in Rome issued such a text, if that were possible. Steve suggests what the result may be: a smaller Church, that is, a smaller number of people considering themselves Catholics. While I cannot disagree with Steve’s observations, I personally do not know the answer. I do know a bit about the Church’s history since its beginning, and I am aware that each of us who claims to be Catholic or once made that claim is a sinful person. The measure and degree of sinfulness waxes and wanes, but we must be mindful that God sends His people help to cast off temptation and seek that greater perfection, that deeper holiness, and that greater goodness that can be found within each person who desires to abandon the sinful and put on Christ. I am of the view that God has never abandoned His people; however, it is His people—individually and in community—who have turned their backs to God. Percentages really are unimportant, but human nature and its ability to remain faithful or to succumb to temptation are facts.
God has called His people to holiness and to fidelity. What pollsters, interest groups, lobbyists, or individual theologians suggest and argue is nice to know. But, what God asks of us is pretty clear. When we need help to determine what that is, our Holy Mother the Church is there to help. Each person through his or her baptism has a role in evangelizing—going forth to bring the Good News to those who have not heard it. But, ultimately it is up to each of us to accept it or not. That is the free will God has given everyone; it is up to us to exercise it with fidelity. But if we chose not to on any particular occasion through our own insistence that my conscience, right or wrong, is the voice I follow, God will still be there to welcome us home if our sincere intention is ultimately to seek His forgiveness, understanding, and mercy.
Like Steve, I, too, am interested in what others think. But frankly, I don’t think God is interested in opinion polls and the percentages they reflect. I don’t think God is interested in popularity polls or that which is deemed politically correct at any moment. His truth exists, and His Son has shown us the way to that truth that he personifies. It is up to us to accept that way and God’s Truth or not. As Pope Benedict said at Regensburg and as the Second Vatican Council did in December of 1965, there is no compulsion in religion, in belief, in true faith. Businesses may be interested in increased market shares; and governments in larger percentages of electorates; but the Church is interested in the salvation of souls, and, I believe, so is God. If I may borrow from St. Paul, it’s running the race and finishing that is important—all win who discipline themselves up to the finish line and remain mindful and observant of what God asks along the way.RJA sj
In the new issue of Books and Culture, Alan Jacobs catalogs some recent "howlers" -- laughably uninformed or at best simple-minded statements about evangelicals and other Christians -- made by reviewers who are oh-so-concerned about those uninformed, simple-minded evangelicals. He includes quotes from Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, and this one from biologist Lee Silver, in his book Challenging Nature: "American Christian evangelicals . . . believe that God in the form of Jesus Christ will grant them an eternal afterlife only if they work sufficiently hard to persuade non-Christians to become evangelicals themselves." (Umm, no; whatever you think about preaching to seek conversions, evangelicals -- whose theological cornerstone is justification by faith -- don't teach or believe that their salvation turns on such work.)
Jacobs offers responses to these and concludes:
The first noteable atheists and agnostics, the nineteenth-century critics of Christianity in England and America, were raised in largely Christian cultures and knew, often in considerable detail, the contours of the faith they were opposing. This made them more forceful arguers and more effective debaters, even if it also made them more vulnerable to the power and beauty of the Christian message. . . .
But today's polemical skeptics not only lack adequate knowledge of Christianity or of other religions, they're apparently unaware that such knowledge would be to their advantage. . . . Largely or wholly innocent of religious culture, religious language, and religious belief, they make their confident pronouncements and wonder why, for all the articles and books they're selling, the world seems to be getting more religious rather than less.
"The New Evangelization calls Christians to “go fearlessly into the heart of our culture, into the heart of our people's lives, bringing the Gospel into their homes, into all their many occupations, into their schools and into their arts and sciences, into the media and into the political arena,” the prelate said.
“The New Evangelization means we must inspire people to seek Christ in everything they do, to seek to be his friend, to seek to love him, and to glorify him,” he said. The arts, media and ordinary work must point to the mystery of God. It also involves helping people to discover their vocation.
Gomez said the faith of Catholics has been eroded by consumerism and secularism and there must be new efforts in faith education. The areas of focus must be the identity of Christ and the identity of the Church, he said."
In their relatively recent statement on the Eucharist, http://www.usccb.org/dpp/Eucharist.pdf,
the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops maintains that Catholics are required
to conform their consciences to the Magisterium and they warn that selective
departures from the Magisterium “seriously endangers our communion” with the
Church. Nonetheless, this seems to suggest that some departures might be consistent
with membership in the Church. They proceed to state that those who “knowingly
or obstinately” reject the defined doctrines or definitive moral teachings of
the Church should refrain from receiving communion because they have seriously diminished
their communion with the Church. This too leaves open the question whether
rejection of one teaching is fatal or rejection of more than one teaching is
permissible and, if so, which ones. Certainly the spirit of the Bishop’s
statement seems to suggest that Catholic are to agree or stay away from the
Eucharist.
I do not
have access to recent statistics as I write this. But American Catholics
disagree with many moral teachings of the Church. Between 1963 and 1974, for
example, the majority position of American Catholics shifted away from that of
the Vatican on issues such as whether sex before marriage was always wrong
(from 74% to 35%), whether divorce after marriage is always wrong (from 52% to
17%), and whether contraception is always wrong (from 56% to 16%). The same can
be said of American Catholic priests. The Vatican ,
for example, maintains that homosexual relations, masturbation, and artificial
birth control are always wrong, but only 56% of priests agreed with the Vatican’s
teachings on homosexuality, 28% on masturbation, and 25% on birth control.
What would happen if the Conference made a statement with no
wiggle room, maintaining that if you did
not agree with the Vatican on all of the issues above and many others, you should not receive the
Eucharist (or say mass if you are a priest)? I am uncertain about what the
relevant priests would do. But regarding the lay population I suspect a small
percentage would stay in the Church and not partake in the Eucharist. Many would
leave the Church. And most would simply ignore the Bishops.
I am curious what people think. Assuming their attempts to change minds about morals are for the most part futile, should the Bishops try for a smaller American church filled with people who agree with what they take to be the truth? Could they achieve a church that was homogeneous in belief even if they tried? Why are they not trying for a smaller church? The Vatican won't let them? They don't want it? Alternatively, is the Holy Spirit using the People of God to tell the Bishops something that they do not yet get? Or have the Bishops struck the exact right note?
Rob asks: "If there are certain observable truths about human nature (whether it's a created nature or an accidental nature that has taken hold at this stage of our evolution), those truths have moral implications, don't they?"
My answer (and I am open to being persuaded otherwise) is "no" in the absence of created nature. If there is a "moral law giver," then the truths He placed in human nature have moral implications. But, if all of this is an accident, why should I be morally bound by what is observable in human nature at this stage of our evolution? In other words, why does accidental nature have a claim on how I ought to live and treat other human beings, animals, the environment, etc.? Grotius posited that the natural law held whether or not God existed. Am I being overly simplistic to suggest that the Enlightenment and modernity were a long attempt to work out Grotius' hypothesis? Am I wrong to think that the postmodernists have shown the hypothesis to be false?
Last Friday Texas Governor Rick Perry issued an executive order requiring all entering sixth grade girls in the state to be vaccinated for HPV, a sexually transmitted disease linked to cervical cancer. We've already discussed the wisdom of such moves (here and here); Eugene Volokh weighs in with a series of posts, as does Jonathan Watson.
Dalai Lama Gets Prof's Chair at Emory By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ATLANTA (AP) -- The Dalai Lama, exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, has been named a presidential distinguished professor at Emory University, school officials said Monday.
It's the first university appointment the winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize has accepted, the university said.
The Tibetan leader said in a university statement that he looks forward to offering his services to students and the community.
''I firmly believe that education is an indispensable tool for the
flourishing of human well-being and the creation of a just and peaceful
society, and I am delighted to make a small contribution in this regard
through this appointment,'' he said.
He is expected to deliver his inaugural lecture during an Oct. 20-22
visit to the university, and to participate in a conference on science
and spirituality and an interfaith session on religion.
Emory also is creating a fellowship in the Dalai Lama's name to fund
annual scholarships for Tibetan students who attend its undergraduate
and graduate schools.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is working on new documents addressing bioethics (with no change in teaching on the use of condoms) and natural law, which is "the only possible foundation for fruitful inter-religious dialogue."
A nice piece, from the NYT travel section, about Flannery O'Connor's Georgia stomping grounds:
O’Connor’s short stories and novels are set in a rural South where people know their places, mind their manners and do horrible things to one another. It’s a place that somehow hovers outside of time, where both the New Deal and the New Testament feel like recent history. It’s soaked in violence and humor, in sin and in God. He may have fled the modern world, but in O’Connor’s he sticks around, in the sun hanging over the tree line, in the trees and farm beasts, and in the characters who roost in the memory like gargoyles. It’s a land haunted by Christ — not your friendly hug-me Jesus, but a ragged figure who moves from tree to tree in the back of the mind, pursuing the unwilling.
Many people — me for instance — are in turn haunted by O’Connor. Her doctrinally strict, mordantly funny stories and novels are as close to perfect as writing gets. Her language is so spare and efficient, her images and character’s speech so vivid, they burn into the mind. Her strange Southern landscape was one I knew viscerally but, until this trip, had never set foot in. I had wondered how her fictional terrain and characters, so bizarre yet so blindingly real, might compare with the real places and people she lived among and wrote about.
Hence my pilgrimage to Milledgeville this fall, and my race against the setting sun.
